Skyscrapers Template‑class | |||||||
|
proposed buildings can't have been 300 meters tall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.186.234 ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Should Somebody add taltin's tower to this template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.46.255 ( talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is this building in the 'cancelled' section? It has never been officially cancelled, it even has been built and reached almost its proposed height. Officially, construction is just on hold. I wonder whether it should appear in this box at all. -- H005 07:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Linking to a template in the see also section seems kind of weird. Is there a better way to get the information across? -- OGoncho ( talk) 19:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know if there is any other criterion to consider a building a "vision" rather than being labeled as such in its official website ( http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Projects/0504/Default.aspx). Meanwhile, I took the liberty to add it. Theodopulus ( talk) 23:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Who removed it? I think it will be a supertall! -- Sneaky Oviraptor18 talk edits tribute 19:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
What about “De Nederlandse Berg”? -- 84.61.156.142 ( talk) 13:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Some of the proposed buildings in the "Never realized" group are very much fantasy or high concept ideas for buildings rather than any serious or plausible project. Sometimes they don't even have a site. For example, X-Seed 4000, Vortex Tower, and Shimizu Mega-City Pyramid are clearly in that category. In contrast, Twin Towers 2, Chicago Spire and Dream Tower had fully formed plans and actual locations. Interestingly enough, as I'm writing this I've noticed that Millennium Tower (Tokyo) has been given the status in its infobox as "Visionary". That seems like a really good description of some of these concepts as opposed to "Never realized". Maybe we should create that as new sub-group? Seaweed ( talk) 19:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)